Fully agree with Ole. We've been back and forth on the one-draft, many-drafts, too-many-drafts discussion so many times, and it's not productive. We have a broad group of individuals who are interested in pursuing the drafts. Given that this is a WG that is meant to operate for its participants, as opposed to against them (as has been the case), having progress in the form of document adoption would be a good step forward.
-Woj. On 1 February 2012 15:33, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > > While I appreciate the functional modularity in understanding the > solution space, I do wish that DT had come up with a way to make this one > document to present to the world rather than four. I fear organ rejection > when tossing a list of RFCs for one function to the CPE industry. > > > > In current form, each document has more or less than 10 pages of > substantive text, with considerable overlap between them (how many > "framework" and "architecture" sections do we really need for what are > really just two variants of something 95% the same?). As further evidence > of the problem, there are no less than 19 references to > mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port from > draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00. One page has 5 references alone. > It's is like reading a single book with every other page in a different > binding. > > > > Could we not eliminate the overlap, and just boil this down to one less > than 40 page document? In fact, I bet if you tried you could get it down to > half that. Looks like Remi's new document is on the right track in this > regard. > > > > I'm in favor of the chairs stating that we will adopt a WG document > based on the text in these documents, but I would like to see a stipulation > that they be combined into one (perhaps two but with only the DHCP option > separate) and the overlap eliminated among MAP, T and E eliminated. > > with regards to document organization we've been over that a few times. my > understanding of the Beijing interim meeting was to have the organization > of documents we have now. largely because there were discussions on > different document status for the different documents. e.g. experimental > versus standards track. > > yes, it is certainly possible to merge the 3 documents (MAP, T, E), with > separate sections that only apply to encapsulation and some that apply to > translation. what I feat is that you will pollute the text with lots of > "does not apply in the translation case", "fragmentation issues are > slightly different", and so on. > > this is obviously something the working group has to decide on, but I > don't think that needs to be done before adopting this document set. > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
